you can't be serious
EDIT: it appears like it's never too late to give feedback... and boooy, i think it really does need some. lol i could have actually mapped a diff by now.
SPOILERYes, I might just have about 1000pp, but that doesn't mean I can't play this diff. I've played it up to here with not many problems and found it surprisingly comfortable to play. I happen to have just about enough playing experience to be able to give my gameplay-based opinion about this map. And if I've seen correctly the past half year, ranking maps is based on how well they play, correct? Well, at least allow me to contribute to this.
02:26:878 (2,1) - This is painful to play. What I'd do is a triple on a slider instead. Something like
this maybe. If necessary, increase spacing from (3) to (4) and accordingly to next (1).
02:28:592 (5,1) - This is even more painful.. ow it hurts. I see your thought why it's not just a five-objects stream but instead ending with a slider, because you can hear that sound in the music as well. The problem is, you need to hold the cursor on the slider since it's facing left, but the next object is on the right side. It'll be a lot better to make a blanket out of it, like
this.
02:32:592 (1,2,3,1) -
Liked this pattern! cool job!02:34:592 (2,1) -
Questionable spacing... I'm not gonna say anything about it other than it's questionable since it's still sort of playable.
02:35:163 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,1) - I dislike the spacing here and the direction the stream is leading. 02:34:735 (1,2) - These objects suggest cursor movement towards the lower center of the playfield. If that stream were to be Ctrl G'd and accordingly spaced, it'd go down in the twinkling of an eye. I'd make it less curved as well, in that case. It's quite playable nonetheless, but I'm on about the looks instead.
02:36:735 (2,1) - I would have preferred a triple leading into (1).
02:40:306 (1) - I do not see reason at all why this shouldn't be a circle. It's just making the pattern more complicated than it has to be. Explain please?
02:40:735 (1,2,3) - This looks, feels and plays out of place. The distance from (2) to (3) is truly exaggerated in comparison to the combo before and in my opinion is not justified.
02:41:592 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - I find this pattern extra-ordinarily bad since it's deliberately inversely arranged, facing in one direction and having a triple at the end where the pattern started, with the SAME time gap between the objects. I would have instead applied a triangle structure, leaving the player to less complicated jump, like
this.02:42:878 (1,1) - This is antijumping at its finest... not. This is completely counter-intuitive to the player's anticipation and looks bad.
02:42:306 (7,1,2,3,1) - Doesn't play well for me either. Don't know about others, I'm solely sure about myself.
02:46:306 (1,2,3,4,1) - The triple is facing a different way than the general flow is (next pattern).
02:46:735 (1,2,3,1) - The flow issue from before results here in troubling gameplay as the cursor is required to move precisely here.
02:49:592 (3) - I would have loved to see this as a circle instead. And tbh I don't see reason why this shouldn't be a circle. I see more reason against making it a slider, since it's pausing cursor movement, however briefly.
02:50:163 (1,2,3,4,1,2,1,2,1,2) -
Neat idea here, though!02:52:306 (1,2,3,4) - Emphasis is put on wrong points with wrong objects. I would have just left six circles here, 2x3 circles (as in, 2 combos à 3 circles). Maybe like
this. It really doesn't matter what way you arrange (triangles or unfinished squares) or space them (3 circles even, jump, 3 circles even, another jump to next combo).
02:58:306 (1,1) - I dislike playing this pattern due to the second slider ending waaay somewhere else, as in, not anywhere near the next slider start.
02:59:163 (1,2,3) - TBH, Ctrl G on this plays better imo.
03:01:735 (1,1,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3) -
Wonderful pattern! =^-^=Also liked how uncomplicatedly Hanzer's part went down, nice job overall on the diff!